Ashley Weber, Annotation #4, Date: 10/11/10 The Corporation Film, Director, Release Year The documentary The Corporation was directed by both Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbot and released in 2003.
What is the central argument or narrative of the film? This documentary gives viewers a look at how the corporation came to be the ‘person’ it is today and how it has evolved into such a powerful force and influence since. This film uses case studies to illustrate the many different ways in which having psychopathic corporations without a conscience can pose danger for our future. Throughout the film, these studies evaluate the corporation for its social responsibility and provide many examples of how the corporation as a person is more like a psychopath. Many interviews are used in the film with both corporate critics as well as CEOs of companies.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out? This film points out a great number of sustainability issues dealing with corporations and their actions. -There is a major issue with profit motivation because how do we know when is enough? When a corporation becomes so wealthy, then making it to the top is the goal, once this happens, then staying there becomes the goal. There is never really an end or a definitive end point.
-Externality is another issue presented. When companies or a CEO of a company begins to deal with issues that are too difficult, then a 3rd party can be called upon to let somebody else have those problems. This raises issues with whom to place blame on if the issues become externalized.
-One topic presented was that corporations can lie to protect themselves. In the Monsanto case in 1989, the company said there was no evidence of adverse effects with the use their products, however there were documents were found that proved that they knew all along that it did. They wanted to increase milk production; however we were overproducing milk at the time. Once again the question of when is enough comes in, especially when people’s health is put at risk?
-There is also a lack of effective punishment for companies committing crimes against the environment. Fines for environmental wrong doing is minimal compared to a company’s profit. The film mentions one CEO saying that whether one obeys the law or not depends on if it is cost effective. The film also presented a lengthy list of companies who had committed such crimes including Exxon, Chevron, GE, IBM, Kodak just to name a few.
-Perception, power, and reality of a corporation brings up many questions. One CEO interviewed in the film said he is not the same person when he is the CEO. If a person works for a company, it doesn’t necessarily mean they fully support everything the company does, but should it? We are supporting corporation everyday without even knowing it.
-Boundary Issues was an interesting topic presented. The film mentioned the private taking of commons. Another point was in that the past firefighters would only help a family if the house on fire had the specific emblem on it or else they kept driving. Another interesting fact was that an AOL subsidiary owns the rights to the “Happy Birthday” song. Who would have thought that was possible? Well I guess it doesn’t seem too far off when it is possible for a corporation to be considered a person.
-Companies have gone global creating issues with balance of power. Government no longer has the power they did 50 years ago because these corporations are much larger and multinational. The example was given with GE having the power to over ride the patent office when overturning the rule that a living thing was not patentable. The corporations own blueprints of life now according to the film. Now we can patent anything, but a full birth human being, even genes are patentable. How do we know who to hold accountable for issues with corporations? The film presented the case studies dealing with IBM punch cards relating to the Nazi deaths, Fanta creation by Coca Cola, Lockheed Martin and weapons of mass destruction and afterwards it only makes the case of who is accountable even more blurry.
-Lastly, one of the most interesting parts of the film was the FOX news case with pressure to present false information to the public dealing with health issues. Coming away from this case viewers learn that falsifying the news isn’t against the law.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? I was very compelled by this movie with the great case studies that viewers were all able to relate to the company examples. I found the one interview with the commodities trader/broker extremely compelling as to the real motivation some types of jobs have that are completely uncharacteristic toward people. The broker explained how he and others in his type of business were excited for the bombings and 9/11 because the price of gold went up. I kept asking myself “Is he really saying this in the documentary?”. It really enforced the idea of corporations not having a conscious and corporations are made of people.
It was also very compelling to listen to the story of the CEO of Interface, the carpet manufacturing company. He explained that CEOs never thought about the environment and then he had a realization that made him change the whole way his company worked towards sustainability.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why? I was not entirely convinced by the section on Nagging. This section spoke about how if a child didn’t nag, then parents wouldn’t go out and buy the product. It almost seems to recommend that children not be allowed to be advertised to. Commercials on television do target children because they are part of their target audience; however, parents are also considered targets as well. Although some children tend to get what they want after seeing a toy on tv, what is the difference from their parent taking them to the store and seeing an item there and begging for it? One way I always looked at toys was as gifts that children received as rewards or for holidays. If I child had said they wanted a specific toy a year and they had been well behaved or accomplished a goal they might get it as a reward.
What audiences does the film best address? Why? This film is able to address many different varieties of audiences due to its multitude of case studies relating to all generations. However, young adults are probably the most fitting audience. We are at a point in our lives when media and brand persuasion is at its highest and watching this film could really help make young adults think about what they are buying and who they are buying from. The film is also very beneficial for students looking for jobs to be aware of what you support when you decide to work for a company.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? The company Interface was given as a great example in the film as a model company for sustainable business practices. However, I felt more details could have been given about the company and the statistics about its success. Other interviews with CEOs of other corporations that have been successful would have been interesting to see in comparison if similar traits are possessed that leads companies to be more “humanlike” than others. One example from the movie Food Inc. was Stoneyfield Farm and their ability as an organic brand to compete with the top yogurt brands in the country.
What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective. The film provides the example of Kathy Lee Gifford’s clothing line being exposed for labor issues in manufacturing plants overseas. This issue received a lot of press attention bringing much needed awareness to this issue. The film explains that even if the conditions in these shops didn’t improve very much; now everyone is aware of the sweatshop issues.
The company Interface really was a great example of how a company can go from not thinking about the environment to making the whole company sustainable and still being top of its business. The CEO really brought up a great point about how it took the idea of ‘Death of Birth’ to make him have a breakthrough and realization that sustainability was important. Well, this brings up the point that these other CEOs of companies weren’t fortunate enough to have this realization yet. This makes me wonder what consumers can do to provide that little trigger that will cause the light bulb to go off to change their way of thinking.
Several other points of action mentioned was bringing change by making documentaries such as this one, standing up to the editor in the case of news and journalism from the example with NBC. Lastly, the film emphasizes that companies are being supported when their products are purchased. So, if you don’t like a company, then don’t use their product.
What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.) After watching this film, I was interested to learn more about Michael Moore. I didn’t know much about him prior to this film. I watched a short video clip of CNN evaluating his documentary “Sicko” about American healthcare. CNN begins by evaluating some of the facts presented by Moore in the film and then they bring him on the air to comment. Moore then goes on to say how he wished they (CNN) would just tell the viewers the truth and stop lying and that he wondered which healthcare ad would be coming on next contributing to CNN’s ‘biased’ viewpoint.
I remember in “The Corporation”, Moore says how he gets asked and paid to come on these tv shows and uses their time and movie to get air time to rip apart these shows. After watching this clip, it only reinstated what he was meaning. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpKoN40K7mA http://www.michaelmoore.com/
I was also interested in learning more about the carpet company Interface. I found some interesting sustainability information on their website. 1. “Interface’s dedication to sustainability has evolved into the company’s Mission Zero commitment — our promise to eliminate any negative impact Interface has on the environment by 2020.” 2. “Through process improvements and energy efficiencies, Interface has reduced the energy used to manufacture carpet by 43% since 1996.” 3. “Greenhouse gas emissions are down 44% in absolute terms, or 94% when factoring in offsets, since 1996.” 4. “During the same time period, the company grew net sales by 27%.” http://www.interfaceglobal.com/
The Corporation
Film, Director, Release Year
The documentary The Corporation was directed by both Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbot and released in 2003.
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This documentary gives viewers a look at how the corporation came to be the ‘person’ it is today and how it has evolved into such a powerful force and influence since. This film uses case studies to illustrate the many different ways in which having psychopathic corporations without a conscience can pose danger for our future. Throughout the film, these studies evaluate the corporation for its social responsibility and provide many examples of how the corporation as a person is more like a psychopath. Many interviews are used in the film with both corporate critics as well as CEOs of companies.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
This film points out a great number of sustainability issues dealing with corporations and their actions.
-There is a major issue with profit motivation because how do we know when is enough? When a corporation becomes so wealthy, then making it to the top is the goal, once this happens, then staying there becomes the goal. There is never really an end or a definitive end point.
-Externality is another issue presented. When companies or a CEO of a company begins to deal with issues that are too difficult, then a 3rd party can be called upon to let somebody else have those problems. This raises issues with whom to place blame on if the issues become externalized.
-One topic presented was that corporations can lie to protect themselves. In the Monsanto case in 1989, the company said there was no evidence of adverse effects with the use their products, however there were documents were found that proved that they knew all along that it did. They wanted to increase milk production; however we were overproducing milk at the time. Once again the question of when is enough comes in, especially when people’s health is put at risk?
-There is also a lack of effective punishment for companies committing crimes against the environment. Fines for environmental wrong doing is minimal compared to a company’s profit. The film mentions one CEO saying that whether one obeys the law or not depends on if it is cost effective. The film also presented a lengthy list of companies who had committed such crimes including Exxon, Chevron, GE, IBM, Kodak just to name a few.
-Perception, power, and reality of a corporation brings up many questions. One CEO interviewed in the film said he is not the same person when he is the CEO. If a person works for a company, it doesn’t necessarily mean they fully support everything the company does, but should it? We are supporting corporation everyday without even knowing it.
-Boundary Issues was an interesting topic presented. The film mentioned the private taking of commons. Another point was in that the past firefighters would only help a family if the house on fire had the specific emblem on it or else they kept driving. Another interesting fact was that an AOL subsidiary owns the rights to the “Happy Birthday” song. Who would have thought that was possible? Well I guess it doesn’t seem too far off when it is possible for a corporation to be considered a person.
-Companies have gone global creating issues with balance of power. Government no longer has the power they did 50 years ago because these corporations are much larger and multinational. The example was given with GE having the power to over ride the patent office when overturning the rule that a living thing was not patentable. The corporations own blueprints of life now according to the film. Now we can patent anything, but a full birth human being, even genes are patentable. How do we know who to hold accountable for issues with corporations? The film presented the case studies dealing with IBM punch cards relating to the Nazi deaths, Fanta creation by Coca Cola, Lockheed Martin and weapons of mass destruction and afterwards it only makes the case of who is accountable even more blurry.
-Lastly, one of the most interesting parts of the film was the FOX news case with pressure to present false information to the public dealing with health issues. Coming away from this case viewers learn that falsifying the news isn’t against the law.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I was very compelled by this movie with the great case studies that viewers were all able to relate to the company examples. I found the one interview with the commodities trader/broker extremely compelling as to the real motivation some types of jobs have that are completely uncharacteristic toward people. The broker explained how he and others in his type of business were excited for the bombings and 9/11 because the price of gold went up. I kept asking myself “Is he really saying this in the documentary?”. It really enforced the idea of corporations not having a conscious and corporations are made of people.
It was also very compelling to listen to the story of the CEO of Interface, the carpet manufacturing company. He explained that CEOs never thought about the environment and then he had a realization that made him change the whole way his company worked towards sustainability.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I was not entirely convinced by the section on Nagging. This section spoke about how if a child didn’t nag, then parents wouldn’t go out and buy the product. It almost seems to recommend that children not be allowed to be advertised to. Commercials on television do target children because they are part of their target audience; however, parents are also considered targets as well. Although some children tend to get what they want after seeing a toy on tv, what is the difference from their parent taking them to the store and seeing an item there and begging for it? One way I always looked at toys was as gifts that children received as rewards or for holidays. If I child had said they wanted a specific toy a year and they had been well behaved or accomplished a goal they might get it as a reward.
What audiences does the film best address? Why?
This film is able to address many different varieties of audiences due to its multitude of case studies relating to all generations. However, young adults are probably the most fitting audience. We are at a point in our lives when media and brand persuasion is at its highest and watching this film could really help make young adults think about what they are buying and who they are buying from. The film is also very beneficial for students looking for jobs to be aware of what you support when you decide to work for a company.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
The company Interface was given as a great example in the film as a model company for sustainable business practices. However, I felt more details could have been given about the company and the statistics about its success. Other interviews with CEOs of other corporations that have been successful would have been interesting to see in comparison if similar traits are possessed that leads companies to be more “humanlike” than others. One example from the movie Food Inc. was Stoneyfield Farm and their ability as an organic brand to compete with the top yogurt brands in the country.
What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does
not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The film provides the example of Kathy Lee Gifford’s clothing line being exposed for labor issues in manufacturing plants overseas. This issue received a lot of press attention bringing much needed awareness to this issue. The film explains that even if the conditions in these shops didn’t improve very much; now everyone is aware of the sweatshop issues.
The company Interface really was a great example of how a company can go from not thinking about the environment to making the whole company sustainable and still being top of its business. The CEO really brought up a great point about how it took the idea of ‘Death of Birth’ to make him have a breakthrough and realization that sustainability was important. Well, this brings up the point that these other CEOs of companies weren’t fortunate enough to have this realization yet. This makes me wonder what consumers can do to provide that little trigger that will cause the light bulb to go off to change their way of thinking.
Several other points of action mentioned was bringing change by making documentaries such as this one, standing up to the editor in the case of news and journalism from the example with NBC. Lastly, the film emphasizes that companies are being supported when their products are purchased. So, if you don’t like a company, then don’t use their product.
What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
After watching this film, I was interested to learn more about Michael Moore. I didn’t know much about him prior to this film. I watched a short video clip of CNN evaluating his documentary “Sicko” about American healthcare. CNN begins by evaluating some of the facts presented by Moore in the film and then they bring him on the air to comment. Moore then goes on to say how he wished they (CNN) would just tell the viewers the truth and stop lying and that he wondered which healthcare ad would be coming on next contributing to CNN’s ‘biased’ viewpoint.
I remember in “The Corporation”, Moore says how he gets asked and paid to come on these tv shows and uses their time and movie to get air time to rip apart these shows. After watching this clip, it only reinstated what he was meaning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpKoN40K7mA
http://www.michaelmoore.com/
I was also interested in learning more about the carpet company Interface. I found some interesting sustainability information on their website.
1. “Interface’s dedication to sustainability has evolved into the company’s Mission Zero commitment — our promise to eliminate any negative impact Interface has on the environment by 2020.”
2. “Through process improvements and energy efficiencies, Interface has reduced the energy used to manufacture carpet by 43% since 1996.”
3. “Greenhouse gas emissions are down 44% in absolute terms, or 94% when factoring in offsets, since 1996.”
4. “During the same time period, the company grew net sales by 27%.”
http://www.interfaceglobal.com/